Finite Element Analysis of the Effect of Geometric and Material

Parameters on Tube Hydroforming

Dhrumit Gajjar1, Shakil Kagzi2, Harit Raval3
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Surat
395007, India
Emails: 1dkgajjar252@gmail.com, 2shakil128@gmail.com, 3hkr@med.svnit.ac.in

Abstract: Hydroforming is a cost effective way of shaping various metals and alloys into
lightweight, structurally stiff and strong pieces. The largest applications of hydroforming can be
found in the automotive and aerospace industries. It offers several advantages like decrease in
weight of the components and overall number of steps required, but bursting and necking are
some undesirable properties that may occur during hydroforming. These unwanted properties
depend on the combination of geometric and material parameters in conjunction with loading
conditions. In this study, the influence of geometric and material parameters on tube
hydroforming (with absence of die contact) is done using FEA. The main aim is to study the
behavior of peak pressure, radial displacement and relative thinning in the process of tube
bulging through variation of thickness, length, diameter of Aluminium alloy tubes. Axisymmetric
finite element simulations are performed using nonlinear implicit analysis. The computed results
are compared and validated with the results available in the literature and the tube bulging is
studied through aforementioned variations. It is found that peak pressure depends significantly
on thickness of the tube, while the radial displacement and relative thinning depends significantly
on fluid pressure. A similar trend in the rate of bulging and relative thinning with pressure is
observed for different thickness of tube. It is noteworthy that for a given length and diameter of
the tube, the relative thickness at peak pressure is almost similar for different values of thickness.
It is also found that the variation of radial stress with axial and circumferential stress is very small.
The rate of bulging and thinning significantly depends on material properties of the tube.

Keywords: Tube hydroforming, FEA, Radial displacement, Relative thinning, Peak pressure

1. INTRODUCTION [5] conducted Viscous Pressure Forming

Various applications of hydroforming are in the
fields of Aerospace, Alternative energy, Military
and especially Automotive. The main application of
this method has been found in manufacturing of
reflectors, household appliances as well as
components in the hygiene, aerospace, automotive
and aircraft industries. Many companies in the
automotive sector are experiencing great success
with the process which can reduce weight, overall
costs, and the number of parts per vehicle. Desai and
Karandikar [1] provides an overview of the
Hydroforming process and it's increasing
application to automotive industry, an elaborated
study of hydroforming can be encountered in Koc
and Altan [2]. Lang et al. [3] stated that following
the development of the relevant technologies, such
as equipment design and manufacturing, automatic
control systems, ultra pressure units, etc. many
different methods have been invented and
hydroforming can be applied successfully in large
volume production. It is believed that the future of
the hydroforming still remains quite
In previous works Thiruvarudchelvan and
Lewis [4] found hydroforming process to be feasible
with constant pressure, although the draw ratio
possible is limited, optimum pressure must be used
to prevent wrinkling at lower pressures and cup
fracture at unduly high pressures. Ahmetoglu et al.
experiments. In these experiments, process
parameters (such as clamping load, forming speed
and sheet metal blank material) were varied and their
effect on medium pressure, part geometry and
thickness has been evaluated Kulkarni et al. [6]
performed free hydroforming experiments and finite
element simulation of aluminium alloy, non-
proportional strain paths were obtained for different
loading conditions and peak pressure are
significantly dependent on strain path’s nature.
Varma and Narasimhan [7] demonstrated in the
study that by varying the process parameters or by
changing the loading conditions during
hydroforming, one can subject the tube to non-
proportional or proportional strain paths.
Ray and Mac Donald [8] studied the
development of branch height and wall thickness of
X and T branch tubes. Seyedkashi et al. [9] studied
the effects of initial diameter and wall thickness on
shape conformation, optimal internal pressure and
axial force. They provided guidelines for prediction
of tube hydroforming parameters. Alaswad et al.
[10] investigated the final bulge height of single and
bi-layered tubes under different loading paths. It can
be realized that the previous studies have focused on
thickness distribution and bulging of tube under
final pressure stage, thickness and bulging of tube
during pressure variation is not observed in many
literatures and is investigated in present study.
 In this work, the influence of geometric
parameters on tube hydroforming (with absence of
die contact) is investigated using Finite Element
Analysis. The main aim is to study the behavior of
peak pressure, radial displacement and relative
thinning at mid-length in the process of tube bulging
through variation of thickness, length, and diameter.
From the simulations it can be inferred that the
bursting pressure depends significantly on thickness
of the tube, while the radial displacement and
relative thinning depends significantly on fluid
pressure. A similar trend in the rate of bulging and
relative thinning with pressure is observed for
different thickness of tube. It is noteworthy that for
a given length and diameter of the tube, the relative
thickness at peak pressure is almost similar for Figure. 1 Tube Geometry
different values of thickness.
Table. 1 Tube Dimensions
2. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
Thickness Internal diameter
Length L
In order to save computation time and memory, T0 in mm D in mm
axisymmetric finite element simulations are
performed in ABAQUS and finite deformation 1 40, 50, 60
150 mm
theory is employed. Free bulging (no axial end 2 50, 60, 75
displacement) of the tube is examined through the 2 40, 50, 80
225 mm
variations in geometric parameters i.e. tube 3.8 50, 62.6, 80, 100
dimensions (length, thickness and diameter). 2.5 60, 80, 100
300 mm
2.1. Model 3.8 80, 100

Axisymmetric finite element model of the tube

is developed in ABAQUS, due to symmetry at the
mid-length of the tube only half of the tube is
modeled (see Fig. 1). The dimensions of the tube are
varied to study their effect (see Table. 1) where L =
length, T0 = initial thickness and D = internal
diameter of the tube. The finite element used in the
analysis is axisymmetric type CAX4H (A 4-node
bilinear axisymmetric quadrilateral with hybrid
formulation element available in finite element
library in ABAQUS).
2.2. Loads and boundary conditions
The internal fluid pressure and boundary
conditions applied on the tube are presented (see
Fig. 1). A part of the tube capsuled (LC) is radially
constrained, the length of which is one third of the
half-length (L/2) of the tube and the mid portion of
the tube is constrained in axial direction due to
symmetry.
The fluid pressure is applied on the inner
surface of the tube (see Fig. 1) through the fluid
cavity interaction available in ABAQUS. The
pressure amplitude is variegated linearly over step
time. No axial end displacement is applied on the
tube, only free bulging of the tube is studied.
2.3. Material properties
The tube materials used in this analysis are Al–
3%Mg, Al–4%Mg, and Al–5% Mg alloy. The
material properties of is Al–3%Mg alloy are
obtained from a previous experimental study by
Kulkarni et al. [6]. The true stress versus plastic
strain variation, which is deduced from the curve in
Kulkarni et al. [6] is employed and the material is
assumed to obey Hill’s normal anisotropy criteria.
The mean values of the Young’s modulus (E),
Poisson’s ratio (ν), ultimate tensile stress and initial
yield stress (Y) in L-direction are taken as 70 GPa,
0.3, 205 MPa and 80MPa respectively. The
anisotropy parameter (Lankford ratio) are R0 = 0.56,
R45 = 0.86, R90 = 0.6.
The material properties of Al–4%Mg and Al–
5%Mg alloy are given in Table. 2 following
Krupkowsky law (see Eqn. 1), both obey Hill’s 48
criteria and isotropic hardening.
σ= K (ε0 + ε) n (1)
Where σ is stress and ε is plastic strain. The Finite
Element Analysis for the study of geometric
parameters in performed with Al-3%Mg alloy tubes.
 Table. 2 Material Properties of Al-4%Mg and Al-5%Mg alloy
Material E (GPa) ν K (MPa) n ε0
AlMg4 69 0.3 441.2 0.1734
AlMg5 69 0.3 549 0.2658
Figure. 2 Deformed tube at peak pressure.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, initial discussion is on the
deformation of the tube, followed by discourse of
the effects of geometric parameters (length,
diameter and thickness) and material properties of
the tube on relative thickness, radial displacement
and peak pressure.
3.1 Tube deformation and peak pressure
The deformed shape of the Al-3%Mg tube (see
Fig. 2) is presented. The figure shows the variation
of equivalent plastic strain in the tube, it can be
observed that maximum value of equivalent plastic
strain (0.24-0.25) is at the mid-length of the tube
which corresponds to the peak pressure and upper
portion of tube that is constrained experiences less
plastic strain. As the pressure increases, the amount
of bulging increases. At the mid-length of the tube it
was noted that the normalized radial stress was very
less compared to normalized hoop and axial stress.
The axial stress remains almost zero for a portion of
the loading (see Fig. 3) and then increases with hoop
stress. A slight fluctuation in axial stress is observed
which may be due to the resistance towards
beginning of yielding phase in the tube. The peak
pressure is obtained corresponding to the maximum
value of equivalent plastic strain (0.24-0.25). The
peak pressure depends significantly on the
combination of tube dimensions (see Fig. 4), it
increases significantly with decrease in internal
diameter and increase in thickness as more
resistance is offered by a thick tube. The peak
pressure is almost independent from the length of the
tube compared to thickness and diameter. The
content of magnesium in the alloy also had
increasing effect on peak pressure.
R0 R45 R90
0.00519 0.582 0.865 0.563
0.007721 0.713 0.927 0.784
Figure. 3 normalized hoop stress vs axial stress
3.2. Relative thickness
The variation of thickness at the mid-length of
the tube (Al-3%Mg) with pressure is studied for
different tube dimensions. In order to compare
thinning at the mid-length for different thicknesses
of the tube, the thickness of the tube is normalized
by initial thickness (T0). Fig. 5(a-b) shows the
variation in relative thickness with pressure at
different diameters and initial thickness for a given
length of the tube. From the figures it can be
observed that as the pressure increases the relative
thickness remains unity up to a certain pressure and
then starts to decrease, this is due to the fact that the
yielding of tube occurs after a particular pressure
depending on the dimensions of the tube. After the
yielding of tube, the relative thickness starts
decreasing with pressure (see Fig. 5a). The slope of
the curve gets steeper as the internal pressure grows
because as the pressure increases the rate of bulging
increases as a result of increase in circumferential
strain, albeit axial strain obtained is negative, it is
unable to compensate the effect of circumferential
strain. It is noteworthy that the minimum value of
relative thickness is just below 0.84 at the mid-
length for any combination of dimensions of the tube
(see Fig. 5a-b).
3.2.1. Effect of thickness
As the thickness decreases for a tube of given
length and diameter, relative thickness decreases
more steeply (see Fig. 5b), this result can be inferred
from the obvious fact that a thin tube provides less
resistance to deformation. It is also observed that the
with the increase in thickness, the peak pressure for
minimum relative thickness also increases (see Fig.
5b) The nature of the curve gets similar when the
rate of bulging increases, the shift in the curve
significantly depends on the thickness of the tube.
 Figure. 4(top-left) Peak pressure distribution for combination of tube dimensions.
Figure. 5(clockwise from top-right) (a). Relative thickness vs. pressure for 150mm tube length. (b). Relative thickness vs.
pressure for 225mm tube length and 3.8mm thickness. (c). Relative thickness vs. pressure for 3.8mm thick tube.
3.2.2. Effect of tube internal diameter
The variation in relative thickness of tube with
pressure is shown in Fig. 5(b) for a given length and
thickness of the tube, the increases in internal
diameter (D), decreases the peak pressure at which
minimum thickness is obtained P=27.2(MPa) for D
= 50 mm, P = 17.84 (MPa) for D = 80 mm,
P=14.75(MPa) for D=100mm but the increase in not
significant (see Fig. 5(a)) compared to that of the
thickness of the tube.
3.2.3. Effect of tube length
From the simulations it is observed that there isn’t
any discrete change (see Fig. 5(c)) in the relative
thickness curve, but near the final pressure the curve
deviates slightly. Hence, it can be inferred that effect
of tube length on relative thickness of the tube is
undistinguished.
3.2.3. Effect of magnesium content in tube
The rate of thinning shifts towards right (see Fig.
6) with the increase in magnesium content, it is
noted that minimum relative thickness changes with
material rather than tube dimensions.
3.3. Radial displacement
The variation of radial displacement at the mid-
length of the tube (Al-3%Mg) with pressure is
analyzed for different tube dimensions. Fig. 7(a)
shows the variation of radial displacement with
pressure at different diameters and initial thickness
for a given length (L=150mm) of the tube. The
results for a given tube dimensions (L=225mm, D=
62.6mm, T0= 3.8mm) are compared with that of
Varma and Narasimhan [7] and good agreement is
obtained. From the figures it can be observed that as
the pressure increases the radial displacement is null
up to a certain pressure and then starts to decrease,
this is due to the fact that the yielding of tube occurs
after a particular pressure depending on the
dimensions of the tube. After the yielding of tube,
the rate of bulging is low but then increases rapidly
as it attains peak pressure (see Fig. 7(a)). The slope
of the curve gets steeper as a result of increase in
circumferential strain, albeit axial strain obtained is
negative, it is unable to compensate the effect of
circumferential strain The curve becomes almost
vertical at the peak pressure which is due very large
increase in circumferential strain and the bulging of
the tube may occur beyond peak pressure.
3.3.1. Effect of thickness
Fig. 7(b) shows the radial displacement with
pressure for a tube of length 225mm and internal
diameter 61.6mm. The rate of bulging becomes
almost vertical near to their respective peak
pressures. For a given tube length and diameter (see
Fig. 7(a)) the amount of bulging is almost similar at
peak pressure. Hence the effect of thickness of the
tube on radial displacement at peak pressure is not
significant.
3.2.2. Effect of tube length and internal diameter
The amount of bulging at peak pressure increases
with the increase in internal diameter of the tube (see
Fig. 7(a)), this is because of higher circumferential
strain at peak pressure for greater internal diameter
of the tube. On examining the radial displacement
with pressure for tubes of length 225mm and
300mm, it was noted that the deviation of curves is
only observable near the peak pressure, hence like
 Figure. 6(top-left). Relative thickness vs. pressure for different Mg content, tube length=150mm thickness=2mm
Figure. 7 (a) (top-right). Radial displacement vs. pressure for 150mm tube length. (b) (bottom-right). Radial displacement vs.
pressure for 225mm tube length and 3.8mm thickness.
Figure. 8(bottom-left) Radial displacement vs. pressure for different Mg content, tube length=150mm thickness=2mm.

thickness, the length of the tube doesn’t have much 5. REFERENCES

significance.
3.2.3. Effect of magnesium content in tube
The rate of bulging curve shifts towards right (see
Fig. 8) with the increase in magnesium content, it is
noted that radial displacement at peak pressure is
almost similar, hence depending heavily on tube
dimensions.
4. CONCLUSION
In this study, axisymmetric finite element
analysis of tube hydroforming was performed under
various geometric and material parameters using
Finite Element based software ABAQUS. It can be
concluded that relative thinning of the tube depends
significantly on tube thickness and diameter while
radial displacement of the tube depends significantly
on tube diameter. It is noteworthy that the minimum
value of relative thickness is 0.84 which is
independent from tube dimensions. The change in
magnesium percentage also had significant effect on
rate of bulging, thinning and peak pressure. The
peak pressure depends significantly on thickness and
diameter of the tube and also depends on magnesium
content in the alloy, an extensive simulation study
can be very useful in prediction of peak pressure for
a particular dimensions of the tube.
[1] J. Desai et al., “Hydroforming and Latest
Advances,” Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida.
[2] M.Koc et al., “An overall review of the tube
hydroforming (THF) technology,” J. Mater. Process.
Tech., 2001; 108: 384–393.
[3] L.H.Lang et al., “Hydroforming highlights: sheet
hydroforming and tube hydroforming,” J. Mater.
Process. Tech., 2004; 151: 165–177.
[4] S.Thiruvarudchelvan et al., “A note on
hydroforming with constant fluid pressure,” J.
Mater. Process. Tech., 1999; 88: 51–56.
[5] M.Ahmetoglu et al., “Hydroforming of sheet
metal using a viscous pressure medium,” J. Mater.
Process. Tech., 2004; 146: 97–107.
[6] A.Kulkarni et al., “An experimental and
numerical study of necking initiation in aluminium
alloy tubes during hydroforming,” Int. J. Mech. Sci.
2004; 46: 1727–1746.
[7] N.Siva Prasad Varma et al., “A numerical study
of the effect of loading conditions on tubular
hydroforming,” J. Mater. Process. Tech., 2008; 196:
174–183.
[8] P.Ray et al., “Experimental study and finite
element analysis of simple X- and T-branch tube
hydroforming processes,” Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2005;
47: 1498–1518.
[9] S. M. H. Seyedkashi., “The effect of tube
dimensions on optimized pressure and force loading
paths in tube hydroforming process,” J. Mech. Sci.
Tech. 2012; 26(6): 1817-1822.
[10] A. Alaswad et al., “Finite element comparison
of single and bi-layered tube hydroforming
processes,” Simulation Modelling Practice and
Theory. 2011; 19: 1584-1593.